#people's democratic republic of north korea

[thebongomediaempire]

A whole sweet potato? To share with the wwhole family? Wow, they're gonna be popular.

Well, poular THERE. 🤐

[mioritic]

North Korean postage stamp depicting hibiscus flowers, 1960

[workersolidarity]

🇰🇵 🚀 🚨

THE DPRK CONTINUES TO DEVELOP LONG-RANGE MISSILES TO DELIVER ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

📹 Footage published by the DPRK showing the North Korean leader, Kim Jung Un, as he oversees the testing of long-range missile systems their military has been developing.

Despite wide-ranging and devastating Western economic sanctions, the DPRK has continued to develop nuclear weapons, along with the missile systems required to strike at the countries antagonizing the east Asian nation.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[rotten-gal13]

I lied, put your clothes back on. I'm giving you a 4 hour long presentation on the North Korean government.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

[miochimochi]

Being a condescending prick doesn’t make you more of an anarchist but it certainly paints you as a neoliberal stooge. Long live the democratic people’s republic of Korea, the ONLY true Korea, and death to her oppressors whom you so valiantly defend because you cannot fathom a world without the status quo.

The Kim Dynasty has been beyond a net negative to the innocents that are suffering underneath the regime. I stand against the status quo and the status quo is statism, a plague on mankind.

[kontextmaschine]

Does North Korea believe in the "fan death" thing?

[ghostofafool]

Credit to @layton-heritage-posts for the blank image!

Am I doing this right?

[minnesotafollower]

U.S. Excludes Cuba from List of Non-Cooperators Against Terrorism     

On May 15 U.S. Secretary of Antony Blinken released the State Department’s annual list of the following four states that did not fully cooperate with the U.S. anti-terrorism efforts: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. [1] The Secretary also stated that the U.S. had determined that the circumstances for the [prior] certification of Cuba for this list had changed and…

[ranjith11]

10 Weird Things That Only Exist In North Korea

An enthralling journey into the reclusive nation of North Korea, unveiling a myriad of bizarre and unique phenomena that can't be found anywhere else on the globe. From eccentric architectural marvels and peculiar customs to mind-boggling rules and traditions deeply rooted in the nation's culture and regime, this video dives deep into the enigmatic world of North Korean oddities. Narrated with insightful commentary, striking visuals, and firsthand accounts, this exploration provides a rare window into the unusual and often misunderstood facets of North Korean life. Strap in for a captivating exploration that's as educational as it is astonishing!

[lighthouse1138]

I'm still trying to figure out how communism and hereditary inheritance of governing power can coexist. Like I'm certain a lot of stories about the DPRK are bullshit as I don't trust their enemies, but still. How the fuck does the logic work? Juche is so fucking weird.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Seventy-four years ago, on June 25, 1950, U.S. imperialism used the United Nations as a cover to launch a genocidal war to prevent the liberation of the Korean peninsula and to invade socialist China.

In the Fatherland Liberation War (known as the Korean War in the West), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea led by Kim Il Sung was able to beat back the U.S. invasion to the 38th parallel with the help of Chinese volunteers and Soviet material assistance.

The human toll was enormous. U.S. and puppet forces carried out massacres of civilians in the south suspected of sympathizing with the socialist north. Twenty percent of the population in the north was killed. Every building above one story in the north was destroyed by U.S. bombs, as was the country’s industrial and agricultural infrastructure.

The Korean people in the north had to rebuild their country from the bottom up. Today, thanks to a planned economy and the political mobilization of its people, the DPRK is a strong socialist country that is able to defend itself and its neighbors from U.S. aggression.

Although an armistice was signed in 1953, the U.S. government still refuses to sign a treaty officially ending the war. The Pentagon continues to illegally occupy south Korea on behalf of Wall Street, using it as a base for subversion and military aggression throughout the region. But none of this has blunted the desire of the Korean people, north and south, for peaceful reunification.

Hands off the DPRK!

U.S. out of Korea!

Korea is one!

[minipisi-is-dumb]

Yall have fun with your shitty right wing zionizt government you're trying to install, I'm sure it'll be soooooo much better for you dumbass

have you ever considered how desperate a nation has to be to rather have an ultra right zionist than to have a false socialist that destroys and kills it's people?

how performative is your leftism where you think that anyone branding themselves as leftist is inherently a good person? because history repeats itself, just as nazis were "national socialists" or north Korea is a "democratic republic", are you going to believe a party on discourse alone, or take in account their recorded actions for 25 years?

have you ever considered that the Venezuelan people, that have been for decades and who understand deeply the struggle of being a global south nation that is continually screwed over by imperialism, aren't the first ones to denounce genocide?

how come our genocide is justified to you? how come your sense of liberation is so transactional that you'd rather see us dead than support our liberation when one of our leaders is siding with an empire on an equally empty way that maduro did with Palestine?

when i point at people and call them out for colonial mentality and justifying what's happening to my country, pretending venezuelans are too ignorant to know what is happening, this is a tame example of it.

at least have the balls to accuse me of something as disgusting as zionism and to laugh at my nation's pain as a public account, and not like the anonymous coward you are.

I want a free Venezuela, free Palestine and every other nation from genocide, and I can say that without shame

[leninisms]

I’m not very well versed in international diplomacy, can you explain why her policy is evil aside from her stance on Israel and Gaza? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I figured you’d be kind enough to actually answer.

hi! thank you for asking so nicely! this is not a dumb question at all, and i’m happy to answer:)

i want to start by quickly shouting out a couple of my favorite independent media outlets that i go to for news, because i believe these people and organizations are doing really crucial work:

geopolitical economy report

breakthrough news, the socialist program, liberation news, and liberation school

people’s dispatch

the real news network

venezuela analysis

i’m gonna break kamala’s foreign policy down section by section, but i do want to first point out that there is no mention of strengthening international partnerships, except through military power. there’s no talk about ending any sanctions or blockades. no talk of strengthening old, or establishing new trade agreements. it’s all military, war, threats, security, attacks, etc..

this is long so it’s all below the cut:)

immediately “american interests” is bad. this does not mean the interests of the american working class (though it would still be bad if it did)— it means the interests of the american capitalist ruling class. the biggest “threat” china poses to the U.S. is the rise of china and the BRICS as global economic superpowers. from liberation news:

“…China’s economic rise poses a threat to this U.S.-dominated unipolar international arrangement, and this fear of the U.S. losing its status as the dominant global power forms the basis of Washington’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Beijing. Presenting this competition as an existential one of “democracy” versus “authoritarianism,” the U.S. applies a strategy of containment toward China to blunt its rise: by seeking to isolate it through military encirclement, foreclosing its access to key markets, and cutting it off economically from the rest of the world. This policy is intended to cripple China’s development, ensuring Western capitalism’s control over the entire globe.”

for more information on china, check out dongsheng news, friends of socialist china, and breakthrough news’ new segment “the china report.” here’s a cool podcast mini-series about china’s revolution. and, just for good measure, here’s all of liberation school’s china analyses. i also recommend this post debunking the “uyghur genocide.”

north korea (the democratic people’s republic of korea/dprk) is not a fascistic military dictatorship or whatever they’re calling it these days. there’s a lot of fear-mongering in the U.S. about the “threat of nuclear war with north korea.” the primary reason dprk has been so adamant about having nuclear weapons is that the united states carpet bombed all of korea from 1950-1953, dropping 635,000 tons of bombs, destroying an estimated 85% of buildings, and killing hundreds of thousands of people. the desire for nuclear weapons comes from the security that mutually assured destruction (MAD) offers.

for more information on korea: this article is a condensed version of stephen gowen’s book (patriots, traitors, and empire: the story of korea’s struggle for freedom). i also recommend the dprk’s government website and the pyongyang times. if you’re a podcast enjoyer, blowback season three was all about korea (and they have a bibliography)!!! and this post has more sources as well:)

i’ll start by saying NATO needs to be abolished. it’s not about peace— it’s about unipolar U.S. hegemony and it’s about aggression and endless war. i’m going to let these sources speak for themselves because they’re just that good.

this episode of the socialist program (2022) is a really good introduction to NATO, specifically in relation to the russia-ukraine conflict. this statement on russia’s intervention in ukraine from liberation news is a very solid analysis. geopolitical economy report shared this article (also available on youtube) just days ago which nicely analyzes some of the reasons the U.S. has been so unconditionally supportive of ukraine. this essay about the convergence of ukrainian liberals and fascists was recommended by one of my comrades, and for good reason. from the article:

… dwelling on Ukraine’s neo-nazis can be an optical illusion. Not that I am one to underplay their murderous actions or political power. But that ultimately, they are junior partners to Ukraine’s liberals. And Ukraine’s liberals at time may be even more militaristic than the nationalists, who more often have their lives under risk at the frontline. Even if liberal slogans may not seem quite so openly bloodthirsty as whatever rightwinger yelling about the Jewish conspiracy.

The political convergence between extreme ethno-nationalism and neo-liberalism... In Ukraine, it’s quite simple: the nationalists care more about cultural policy and the right to shoot those they dislike than economic policy. And the liberals need someone to shoot those they dislike.

i hope this was helpful, but please feel free to ask for clarification or further reading or whatever. i love talking about politics and i love getting to make posts like this because they allow me to expand my knowledge too!! again, thank you for asking!

[mikeo56]

These are the major reasons why the US government is a poor representation of the people’s will

Since the Jan 6 attack on the US Capitol in 2021, I have noticed a disturbing trend. It’s Americans insisting that their country is not a democracy, but a republic. It disturbs me because after World War II, the allied forces, especially Americans, made sure that coming generations of Germans would receive a solid education in what democracy is and why it’s worth protecting.

Maybe they should have done the same in their own country, then I wouldn’t be in this awkward situation now. Because today I have a brief rundown on the difference between a democracy and a republic, why the voting system in the United States and also in the UK is so much worse than that in Germany, according to my entirely unbiased opinion, and whether we would all be better off with randomly selecting members of parliament.

Democracy comes from Greek and literally means rule of the people. Today we take it to mean that a government is elected by the people and each person’s vote counts the same.

This means, among other things, that the relevance of a person’s vote should not depend on how wealthy they are, otherwise we’d be buying members of parliament rather than electing them. Though a cynic might argue that a billionaire promoting candidates on his social media platform is doing exactly that, but let’s not get distracted. All existing democracies are representative, meaning that people vote for a group of typically some hundred members of parliament, whose day job it then becomes to sleep through debates while being livestreamed to the electorate.

Sorry, I meant, whose day job it then becomes to sort out the nitty gritty details of laws and policies. This arrangement is basically division of labour. I sleep on my desk, politicians sleep in parliament, so we all get our fair share. It doesn’t make sense that every person sleeps on each desk. So, representatives. Democracies usually have special decisions that are made directly by the people, in some countries more so than in others. Switzerland is probably the most direct democracy in existence. But there’s a spectrum from more direct to more representative democracy, and each state does it their own way.

Indeed, there’s no agreement on exactly what democracy even means. In China for example you can only vote for candidates that have been approved by the ruling party. The Chinese say that’s democracy.

The word republic on the other hand comes from the latin phrase “res publica”, meaning a matter of the people. It means that a state has a government that represents the people and that the members of the government didn’t inherit their positions.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is that being a republic doesn’t necessarily mean that the representatives were elected by the people.

Calling a state a republic was a way to set it apart from a monarchy. The USA and Germany are both democracies and also federal republics. The UK on the other hand is a democracy, but it’s a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Basically, a state can be a republic and not be democratic, and it can be democratic and not be a republic. The USA and Germany happen to be both.

Stressing the republic part is somewhat redundant at this point, because there aren’t many monarchs left and most people will think this sentence is about butterflies. But even the least democratic states on the planet usually pretend to be democratic, such as the democratic republic of Congo or North Korea.

So why do American republicans try to claim that their country is not a democracy but a republic? Well one explanation is that they don’t understand what either a democracy or a republic is. The other explanation is they try to pre-emptively excuse attacks on democratic norms by trying to argue that such attacks are constitutional.

An interesting insight into why this might happen comes from a study published last year in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. The researchers recruited a sample of almost 2,000 adult Americans. Amazing. I didn’t know there were so many.

The researchers then sorted the participants into republican and democratic camps and asked them whether they support actions that benefit their own party at the expense of democracy.

For example, they’d ask whether the participant supports reducing the number of voting stations in areas where the opposing party is popular. Or whether they support banning social media accounts that support the opposing party. And they also asked what they think the other side would reply. It turns out that democrats are slightly more willing to sacrifice democracy, and that both parties think the other side is substantially more antidemocratic than they are themselves.

But most interestingly, the participants who saw the other side as more willing to subvert democracy were more willing to subvert democracy themselves. And this, I think, explains why members of one party may accuse the other side of being antidemocratic. They do it to justify their own antidemocratic actions. It’s a race in which each party is trying to destroy democracy before the other can do it. And that’s the position in which the United States finds itself in today, with both republicans and democrats willing to sacrifice democracy.  How did they get into this position? I don’t know. I’d be surprised if anyone knows.But I suspect that a big factor is that the US election system leads to a poor representation of the people’s will in the parliament.

The biggest issue with the US democracy is that its voting practices basically haven’t been updated for hundreds of years. Like the UK, the US has what’s called a “first past the post” system in which the candidate with the most votes wins and that’s that. The term derives from horse races in which the winner is the one who literally made it first past the post. This system is not used in all elections, but it is still used in the elections that matter most. In Germany and in most other modern democracies we have instead what’s called a proportional representation, meaning we count the proportion of votes for different parties and assign representatives based on these proportions. The issue is that in the first past the post system, like the US uses, people who vote for candidates that are unlikely to win basically throw away their vote. Since they don’t want that, they vote only for those candidates who have a chance of winning. As a consequence, the political landscape thins out until there are only two parties left. This is why in the USA you basically have only democrats and republicans and nothing else.

In these two-party systems, each party bends their program to try and appeal to as many voters as possible. The biggest change you might get in the political landscape is parties splitting up or joining, as has happened in the UK repeatedly. In the representative system, in contrast, parties tend to stick to their program more closely. Political changes are reflected instead in the changing representation of the parties, not so much in changes of party programs. To give you a sense of the difference, scientists have a way of measuring the average number of parties in a parliament which is using the inverse of the square of the relative proportions. China has 1. In the US it’s 2, in the UK about 2.4, Germany has 5.5 and Brazil a whopping 9.9.

If you've already forgotten half of what I've said, you can take my quiz on QuizWithIt to help your memory. The other thing that’s very old-fashioned about the US system is the electoral college which compounds the problem with the first past the post system. You see, Americans don’t elect the president directly, they instead vote for electors who elect the president.

Each state has a certain number of these electors, but they’re not proportional to the number of voters in these states. Basically this means that depending on where you live in the US, your vote counts more or less in the presidential election. If you live in Florida, for example, your voting power is a third of someone in Wyoming.

This is why you can end up with a situation in which a candidate who gets the majority of votes from the people ends up not getting the majority of votes from the electoral college, and hence doesn’t become president. This is what happened with Hilary Clinton in 2016. She won the popular vote and yet lost the election. According to a poll from just a few weeks ago, a solid majority of Americans would prefer to abandon the electoral college in the election of the president. Though I’m sure this problem can easily be solved by conducting polls through an electoral college.

To make matters worse, in the US, the parties in power sometimes try to skew the odds in their favour by redrawing the boundaries of districts for one elector. You can do this for example by breaking up areas with a strong support for the opposing party into many smaller ones and join them with larger areas that support your own party. Or you isolate them and lump them into as few districts as possible. These techniques are known as “gerrymandering” and are for the most part legal. These are the major reasons why the US government is a poor representation of the people’s will.

But democracy has a lot of problems in general, not just in the USA. For example, several psychological studies have found that the people who aspire to become politicians are more likely to be narcissists and machiavellians.

Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-worth, tend to exaggerate their achievements, and care little about other people. Machiavellians try to achieve their goals by manipulating others. They are often comfortable with using deception or lies to get what they want. You can probably think of a few politicians who fit that description. Basically, candidates who want to be in office are generally not who the people want to be in office. This is the key problem with democracy that Plato in his book “Republic” wanted to solve by letting philosophers rule. And that would indeed be a great idea if you want the government to stop coming to any decisions. A recurring idea to solve this problem is to select people randomly to sit in the government. Many countries already use some sort of “citizen’s assemblies” that inform governmental policy, so why not make this more formal not just informative.

The idea is not new, and indeed a study from 1998 found that groups with randomly chosen leaders perform significantly better in problem solving tasks than those with formally or informally selected leaders. It was a rather small study though among 188 students, and the problem they had to solve was surviving after a bus stranded them in a desert which, seeing the current state of public transportation in Germany, is maybe not so far fetched.

So randomly selecting members of parliament might actually be a good idea, but whether people would accept it is another question entirely.

Last year, researchers asked more than 15 thousand Europeans whether they “think it is a good idea to let a group of randomly-selected citizens make decisions instead of politicians on a scale going from 0 to 10 where 0 is a very bad idea and 10 is a very good idea. The median reply was 4.3. So one can’t say that people are super excited about it. I wouldn’t be excited about it either because I think it’d be a good idea if the people who sit in parliament actually know how their government works to begin with. Basically, you want candidates who are qualified to at least do the job, never mind their political orientation.

Democracy is having a hard time at the moment because most decisions that governments need to make have become too complex for voters to understand. As a consequence, political discussions often focus on a few topics that most people have strong opinions about, such as childless cat ladies, the appropriate uses of a couch, and whether immigrants eat the dogs. From my perspective the issue is that most voters just don’t know which political decision is most likely to work towards their personal values. This is why in the past decade we have seen a lot of apps springing up that help voters match their values to political orientations and parties. I believe that in the next decades we will see more of this, powered by AI, and with that a trend towards more direct democracy. People will just explain an AI what they want and the AI will try to figure out what’s the best policy to realize that. And then they will expect their representatives to represent that. This is possible already, which is why I think it’s only a matter of time until one party tries it, after which, I am convinced, it will spread all over the world. I think that this will solve the currently biggest problem with democracy, which is that it’s just become too slow. So, I am optimistic about the future of democracy. But until AI solves all our problems, it’s up to you to put your cross in the right place. Choose wisely.